Search results

There are holes, but I don't think is THAT complicated. Since you brought leaving cover and coming out in the open: all the Hide action says is that for an enemy to find you they do a Perception check against your stealth DC score. This doesn't specifically say to do the Search action, but it's...

That's up to you; I already said previously that for me it's intended to give the ability to attack while hidden, sneaking, etc. to give the assassin/rogue style fantasy. But if you want steps, here you go 1. Identify the gaps in the rules for your game 2. Apply common sense to the gaps 3...

RAW the rules are wonky, but most here have a pretty good idea of what the RAI is. Honestly, just apply some common sense, use the RAI and save yourselves a lot of headaches. For the most part, its rules lawyers that care about RAW

Like Charlaquin said, the intent is most likely to enable the fantasy of assassin rogues and sneaking in a fight during the fog of combat to attack an enemy where combatants can be hard to track. I believe this is supported by the required Perception check used to "find you"--which the DM which...

I'm perfectly aware of what the RAW is, but that's not what Charlaquin asked me for. I actually agree with Charlaquin here, but I still think this is scenario dependent. The design intent is there though Agreed, though I really don't care to think much about the 3D-VTT which was probably what...

It doesn't read well; I would put it after the Invisible condition like so: A creature you touch has the Invisible condition and is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense until the spell ends.

That is because it doesn't make you transparent, it makes you unable to be perceived by the senses; this is why there is no Perception check involved like with the Hide action. Invisible uses the natural language definition (not perceptible by vision), not the gamified version from video games...

Agreed'

And I do agree with your edit; what I don't agree is with this ridiculous notion some have that because the Invisible condition doesn't specify how you can be seen, if you gain the condition from the Invisibility spell then you can still be seen by just looking at you.

This is no longer present in 2024. Neither Hiding nor combat rules make a mention of it. The Line of Sight rules on page 45 in the new DMG are the same as the 2014 ones, but that does not mean not the same as your screenshot.

The game doesn't recognize facing as a mechanical rule; that is not the same as DMs using the 2014 rules or homebrewing them

The DM tells you, but that does facing rules makes not

It's funny, cause it's true...

Here. Mind you, this is not the complete rules, but just enough to state my point: This is not in 2024, and you can't claim that a blurb in the Hide action means this. So no, what you posted is not facing rules

But that's not facing rules, that's just using line of sight rules. Proper facing rules are absent in 2024 so far, and we're available on page 252 of the 2014 DMG. When we talk about facing, that's what we mean

Unfortunately, those are not facing rules. The DM can use that to determine if an enemy doesn't have line of sight of you, but it doesn't count as facing rules, and there is no section on 2024 like there was in 2014.

If you're talking about being able to see someone under the Invisibility spell with normal sight, then you're out of luck because Perception doesn't work RAW. The spell doesn't say that an enemy finds you, nor does it give a DC Perception check. The condition doesn't tell you how you can be...

There's none. You can do a word search in the 2024 books on DDB and you will find no mention of facing rules. Do a search on the 2014 DMG and you get the Facing rules in CH8

They bypass it, not end it

I play ToM, so this is certainly easier to pull off